Took these pics ages ago but reworked them tonight on CS3, they were overexposed and pretty awful, so I figured I had nothing to lose.
1. Redcliffe botanical gardens.
re-layered this, ( thanks Mason), applied a radial blur filter, reduced opacity (maybe not reduced enough?)
then erased sections that I wanted to show through more sharply using eraser at reduced opacity to keep it softish.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16949082@N07/2052661772/
2. Redcliffe botanical gardens. (again)
fiddled with...
brightness.contrast
colour balance
crop
burn and dodge.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2051875849&size=l
I'd appreciate any comments you may have to offer. Thank you :o)
2007-11-21 00:14:03 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
EDIT :
Ok, did the radial blur one again, but lessened the effect and erased all of that layer except the water and central ferntree fronds.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16949082@N07/2052854158/
2007-11-21 01:52:41 · update #1
Hi again, Lizzie.
The radial blur doesn't work for me. It's one of those effects that is good for some images and not for others. I think this is one of the others.
The image has it's own geometry and flow and is dynamic. The radial blur feels like it conflicts with that and imposes something static and artificial. I think you sensed that in your rework, but at that point you are really using it the way that soft focus, glows and a couple of other effects would be used and they don't bring a graphic quality of their own to the party. Personally, I rarely use the radial blur, but when I do it is very obvious and I am making a visual statement different from the base image. It's not a tool that I use to support something in the image. It's a compositional element in and of itself used to change things.
I think several other effects in the blurring catagory would be more compatible. Soft focus, high key/low key glows, etc., aren't as graphic and function more emotionally. The image would support that. Even the linear radial blur I think would work better than the rotational one.
Of course, that's just my opinion and I tend to use effects to make a break with the image it's based on and take the viewer somewhere else.
You mention using the eraser with different opacities to provide variable clear areas for the sharp image to show through. Try using a layer mask and painting on it instead. It will give you more flexibility and control. It's a generally useful technique that can be used with any adjustment layers.
Both images are lovely, by the way.
That's my opinion. Remember what you paid for it, value it accordingly and keep on experimenting!
Vance
2007-11-21 05:01:25 · answer #1 · answered by Seamless_1 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
#1 The exposure now looks fine; I agree about the radial blur, I think it wrecks a perfectly good picture.
#2 Exposure on the bottom half now looks fine; my eyes are drawn to the out of focus leaves in the upper right and the hot spots on the upper left. These detract from an other wise beautiful photo. I like the border you put on it.
Edited to add - I like it much better with the radial lessened and I do enjoy the new border on it. There is a bit of a yellow hot spot in two places, upper center that could use a tad work, but overall a nice improvement.
2007-11-21 00:57:18 · answer #2 · answered by Perki88 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
y'know i'm trying to learn photoshop as i type this...i am SUCH a caveman!!! it is not easy for me...
i have a couple of friends in the area that are tutoring me and i will take another class at community college in february, but your work is beyond my ability right now...and i don't see how it has been photoshoped right now...(i know we develope an eye for it when someone points out what to look for.) i'm trying to learn the basic with cs2 and my lovely and talented wife is getting tiger and cs3 installed on this machine soon i think and i'm still carving on stone....
2007-11-21 04:54:58 · answer #3 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like both photos, with the exception of the radial blur on the first. It actually makes me queasy to look at it. The image definitely does not need the radial effect. I'm not sure what the thinking was when you decided to use it.
Of course art is subjective and if you like it, so be it. For me though, it totally ruined the photo.
2007-11-21 00:45:01 · answer #4 · answered by K B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first image has great composition and if it was as overexposed as you say it was, then you have done a great job at fixing it with CS3 without it looking like it was (which is the biggest feat). In order to be a really great shot, it's lacking color for impact - I think it could be powerful as a black and white shot. Try converting that one and I think you might have a good shot for your portfolio.
2007-11-21 01:40:32 · answer #5 · answered by squids52 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really good!
The only thing I'd suggest to make them REALLY pop is to take your dodge tool and set it to low opacity (like at 20) and on 'highlights' and dodge a bit, bringing out the highlights. Then use the burn tool on low opacity (15) and on shadows. BOOM.
2007-11-21 08:45:24 · answer #6 · answered by Smo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey nice work specially the radial blur option you used on the 1 pic...
2007-11-21 00:33:54 · answer #7 · answered by shuchita c. 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure if I like the blur, the image looks great without it. Now if you just applied the blur to the water to create motion I think that would look great and ad to the picture.
2007-11-21 00:38:12 · answer #8 · answered by Iris R 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I liked your pics, but didn't like the radial blur. It took away my attention from the composition.
2007-11-21 02:54:33 · answer #9 · answered by x_x_x 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hi
they are both very nice, i liked the bit that you cropped out? - thats me i geuss?
i like the comment above re the blur, on the water yes, the rest not sure of, the 2nd one does have more pop to it, nice work and great learning
a
2007-11-21 00:44:58 · answer #10 · answered by Antoni 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋